193 Democrats voted against HR 2243. Why ?

[protectionist]

The bill HR 2243, broadening the authority of law enforcement officers, passed in the US House of Representitives, 229 to 193, with 14 Democrats voting in favor of it, along with 215 Republicans. But strangely, 193 Democrats voted against the measure.
Is this just more mindless anti-police sentiment ?

The bill appears to just create more protection from crime. It would allow “qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms and ammunition (including magazines) in school zones; in national parks; on state, local, or private property that is open to the public; and in certain federal facilities that are open to the public.”

The bill would also permit “states to reduce the frequency with which retired law enforcement officers must meet certain qualification standards.” Under that provision, states would be permitted to extend the period between training certifications for retired police officers from 12 months to 36 months.

How is it that 193 Democrats see these things increasing law enforcement & police protection, as a bad thing ?

This must be the dopiest thing that Democrats have done regarding police, since their ill-fated ideas of defunding the police.

Slew of Police Reforms’ Fate Now Rests in the Hands of the Senate

Three pro-police bills are in the Senate judiciary committee awaiting markup for a vote before the full chamber, with law...

lawenforcementtoday.com

 

[Dekster]

The bill HR 2243, broadening the authority of law enforcement officers, passed in the US House of Representitives, 229 to 193, with 14 Democrats voting in favor of it, along with 215 Republicans. But strangely, 193 Democrats voted against the measure.
Is this just more mindless anti-police sentiment ?

The bill appears to just create more protection from crime. It would allow “qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms and ammunition (including magazines) in school zones; in national parks; on state, local, or private property that is open to the public; and in certain federal facilities that are open to the public.”

The bill would also permit “states to reduce the frequency with which retired law enforcement officers must meet certain qualification standards.” Under that provision, states would be permitted to extend the period between training certifications for retired police officers from 12 months to 36 months.

How is it that 193 Democrats see these things increasing law enforcement & police protection, as a bad thing ?

This must be the dopiest thing that Democrats have done regarding police, since their ill-fated ideas of defunding the police.

Slew of Police Reforms’ Fate Now Rests in the Hands of the Senate

Three pro-police bills are in the Senate judiciary committee awaiting markup for a vote before the full chamber, with law...

lawenforcementtoday.com

Perhaps they feel that states rights are states rights....you know the thing that republicans claim to support when they aren't in control.

 

[Cougarbear]

The bill HR 2243, broadening the authority of law enforcement officers, passed in the US House of Representitives, 229 to 193, with 14 Democrats voting in favor of it, along with 215 Republicans. But strangely, 193 Democrats voted against the measure.
Is this just more mindless anti-police sentiment ?

The bill appears to just create more protection from crime. It would allow “qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms and ammunition (including magazines) in school zones; in national parks; on state, local, or private property that is open to the public; and in certain federal facilities that are open to the public.”

The bill would also permit “states to reduce the frequency with which retired law enforcement officers must meet certain qualification standards.” Under that provision, states would be permitted to extend the period between training certifications for retired police officers from 12 months to 36 months.

How is it that 193 Democrats see these things increasing law enforcement & police protection, as a bad thing ?

This must be the dopiest thing that Democrats have done regarding police, since their ill-fated ideas of defunding the police.

Slew of Police Reforms’ Fate Now Rests in the Hands of the Senate

Three pro-police bills are in the Senate judiciary committee awaiting markup for a vote before the full chamber, with law...

lawenforcementtoday.com

Democrats are dopey. Plain and simple.

 

[protectionist]

Perhaps they feel that states rights are states rights....you know the thing that republicans claim to support when they aren't in control.

Another thing the bill does is to allow law enforcement officers to carry firearms across state lines. So ? Like I should object to cops from Georgia carrying a firearm in Florida ?
Why would I object to that ?

People from other states visit Florida to attend football games, go to Disneyworld, Busch Gardens, and similar attractions. If cops from other states are present in these places and armed, it sends a signal to bad guys that this is not a green light for them to go there and cause mayhem.

 

[Cougarbear]

Perhaps they feel that states rights are states rights....you know the thing that republicans claim to support when they aren't in control.

State rights? Are the states not part of the United States of America? Federal Law trumps State Law. Like the play on words there. "Trump"

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Well the Democrats have chosen the side of the criminals again.
The Democrats politicians know who votes for them.

 

[protectionist]

This is a well worthwhile short video of part of the actual discussion that took place in the House about HR2243.

 

[Dekster]

Another thing the bill does is to allow law enforcement officers to carry firearms across state lines. So ? Like I should object to cops from Georgia carrying a firearm in Florida.
Why would I object to that ?

People from other states visit Florida to attend football games, go to Disneyworld, Busch Gardens, and similar attractions. If cops from other states are present in these places and armed, it sends a signal to bad guys that this is not a green light for them to go there and cause mayhem.

So that should be up to Florida to decide not the federal government.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The bill HR 2243, broadening the authority of law enforcement officers, passed in the US House of Representitives, 229 to 193, with 14 Democrats voting in favor of it, along with 215 Republicans. But strangely, 193 Democrats voted against the measure.
Is this just more mindless anti-police sentiment ?

The bill appears to just create more protection from crime. It would allow “qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms and ammunition (including magazines) in school zones; in national parks; on state, local, or private property that is open to the public; and in certain federal facilities that are open to the public.”

The bill would also permit “states to reduce the frequency with which retired law enforcement officers must meet certain qualification standards.” Under that provision, states would be permitted to extend the period between training certifications for retired police officers from 12 months to 36 months.

How is it that 193 Democrats see these things increasing law enforcement & police protection, as a bad thing ?

This must be the dopiest thing that Democrats have done regarding police, since their ill-fated ideas of defunding the police.

Slew of Police Reforms’ Fate Now Rests in the Hands of the Senate

Three pro-police bills are in the Senate judiciary committee awaiting markup for a vote before the full chamber, with law...

lawenforcementtoday.com

Why? Because they don't want even more guns in schools, private parks, etc.

 

[Darkwind]

The bill HR 2243, broadening the authority of law enforcement officers, passed in the US House of Representitives, 229 to 193, with 14 Democrats voting in favor of it, along with 215 Republicans. But strangely, 193 Democrats voted against the measure.
Is this just more mindless anti-police sentiment ?

The bill appears to just create more protection from crime. It would allow “qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms and ammunition (including magazines) in school zones; in national parks; on state, local, or private property that is open to the public; and in certain federal facilities that are open to the public.”

The bill would also permit “states to reduce the frequency with which retired law enforcement officers must meet certain qualification standards.” Under that provision, states would be permitted to extend the period between training certifications for retired police officers from 12 months to 36 months.

How is it that 193 Democrats see these things increasing law enforcement & police protection, as a bad thing ?

This must be the dopiest thing that Democrats have done regarding police, since their ill-fated ideas of defunding the police.

Slew of Police Reforms’ Fate Now Rests in the Hands of the Senate

Three pro-police bills are in the Senate judiciary committee awaiting markup for a vote before the full chamber, with law...

lawenforcementtoday.com

Well, the reduced frequency of meeting certifications isn't a good idea, but the rest seems okay.

 

[Crepitus]

The bill HR 2243, broadening the authority of law enforcement officers, passed in the US House of Representitives, 229 to 193, with 14 Democrats voting in favor of it, along with 215 Republicans. But strangely, 193 Democrats voted against the measure.
Is this just more mindless anti-police sentiment ?

The bill appears to just create more protection from crime. It would allow “qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms and ammunition (including magazines) in school zones; in national parks; on state, local, or private property that is open to the public; and in certain federal facilities that are open to the public.”

The bill would also permit “states to reduce the frequency with which retired law enforcement officers must meet certain qualification standards.” Under that provision, states would be permitted to extend the period between training certifications for retired police officers from 12 months to 36 months.

How is it that 193 Democrats see these things increasing law enforcement & police protection, as a bad thing ?

This must be the dopiest thing that Democrats have done regarding police, since their ill-fated ideas of defunding the police.

Slew of Police Reforms’ Fate Now Rests in the Hands of the Senate

Three pro-police bills are in the Senate judiciary committee awaiting markup for a vote before the full chamber, with law...

lawenforcementtoday.com

Broadening the powers of the police is not a good thing. Reduced training is not a good thing. Guns in school zones is not a good thing.

None of this is rocket science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's basically a test case. A baby step. The true goal is a Federal Constitutional carry standard, so no States can have any effective laws at all, really, regarding concealed carry.

And the goal of this is to sell lots and lots of guns.

 

[protectionist]

So that should be up to Florida to decide not the federal government.

Post # 5 addressed that quite adequately.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The bill HR 2243, broadening the authority of law enforcement officers, passed in the US House of Representitives, 229 to 193, with 14 Democrats voting in favor of it, along with 215 Republicans. But strangely, 193 Democrats voted against the measure.
Is this just more mindless anti-police sentiment ?

The bill appears to just create more protection from crime. It would allow “qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms and ammunition (including magazines) in school zones; in national parks; on state, local, or private property that is open to the public; and in certain federal facilities that are open to the public.”

The bill would also permit “states to reduce the frequency with which retired law enforcement officers must meet certain qualification standards.” Under that provision, states would be permitted to extend the period between training certifications for retired police officers from 12 months to 36 months.

How is it that 193 Democrats see these things increasing law enforcement & police protection, as a bad thing ?

This must be the dopiest thing that Democrats have done regarding police, since their ill-fated ideas of defunding the police.

Slew of Police Reforms’ Fate Now Rests in the Hands of the Senate

Three pro-police bills are in the Senate judiciary committee awaiting markup for a vote before the full chamber, with law...

lawenforcementtoday.com

Illegals are the largest democrat "voting" bloc

 

[protectionist]

Why? Because they don't want even more guns in schools, private parks, etc.

Thereby sending invitations to criminals to come in and shoot innocent people. Here's what keeping law-abiding law enforcement folks out of schools & parks shows to criminals >>

 

[protectionist]

Broadening the powers of the police is not a good thing. Reduced training is not a good thing. Guns in school zones is not a good thing.

None of this is rocket science.

So having no guns in schools, thereby inviting criminals to come in and kill students is your idea of public safety. Every mass shooting in schools in America was in a gun-free zone.

That's right its not rocket science, it is simple common sense, and this is another thing that got Trump re-elected in 2024.

Why in the world would someone think that "Broadening the powers of the police is not a good thing. " ?

The less powers that police have, the more powers that criminals have.

 

[protectionist]

And the goal of this is to sell lots and lots of guns.

 

[protectionist]

Illegals are the largest democrat "voting" bloc

Illegal aliens and other criminals.

 

[Dekster]

Post # 5 addressed that quite adequately.

Nope. States determine their gun laws.

 

[protectionist]

Nope. States determine their gun laws.

If the federal govt, creates a gun law, it is law.